Case Digest (G.R. No. L-186)
Facts:
Horacio A. Guanzon et al. v. Ang Ban, Ang Chung and Tan Kue, G.R. No. L-186. August 06, 1946, the Supreme Court, Perfecto, J., writing for the Court.On February 24, 1941, Epifania Vda. de Guanzon (lessor) and Tan Kue (lessee) executed a written five‑year lease for premises Nos. 1008 and 1010 Calle Lavezares, Binondo, Manila, at a monthly rental of P130 effective March 15, 1941 to March 15, 1946. In December 1944, Tan Kue evacuated Manila with his family and abandoned the premises; he ceased paying rents from January 1945 onward.
Plaintiffs discovered Ang Ban and Ang Chung occupying the premises without legal right and filed an ejectment complaint on April 28, 1945. By amendment of May 21, 1945, Tan Kue was joined as a defendant and was also sued for unpaid rents, liquidated damages, attorney’s fees and costs. At trial Tan testified he returned to Manila in March 1945, lived at 1522–24 Oroquieta and engaged in a bakery business, but failed to tender the overdue rents because he was "very busy." Plaintiffs’ witness Horacio A. Guanzon testified that the two Angs moved in because their house had burned, that he demanded they vacate, and that on May 4, 1945 Tan Kue sought another lease and promised to sue the occupiers yet did not pay arrears. Ang Ban claimed he had been left as caretaker of the lessee's belongings and that Ang Chung was merely a visitor.
The Court of First Instance of Manila (Judge Mariano L. de la Rosa) held the lease terminated, ordered the defendants to vacate, and adjudged them jointly and severally liable for P130 per month from January 1945 until the property was vacated, plus costs. Defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, urging (1) dismissal for failure to com...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is Section 2 of Rule 72 of the Rules of Court applicable so as to require dismissal of the complaint for failure to serve the statutory notice?
- Does Tan Kue’s alleged failure to pay rent due to force majeure relieve him of his obligation to pay the rents arrear and ongoing liabilities for the premises occupied by Ang Ban a...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)